fear that legislation could encourage outsourcing of jobs & emissions

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that they will not
support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does that
amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:
 

Full
text of the
Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators to President Obama on climate
change
legislation is available at
http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02
 

Daily
Report for
Executives™

Source:  Daily
Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 
 
Senators
Tell Obama They Need Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate
Bill
 
Ten
Democratic
senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust
Belt states, warned President Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their
support for
climate legislation will hinge on whether they get strong protections
for
domestic industries, including a border adjustment mechanism.
 
The
senators,
viewed as a key bloc in determining the fate of a Democratic climate
bill being
readied for a floor vote this fall, said any bill must ensure a level
playing
field for U.S. manufacturing
if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse
gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.
The
letter was
signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio),
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.),
Evan Bayh (Ind.),
Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Arlen
Specter (Pa.),
John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al Franken (Minn).
 
The
letter was
also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate
Environment and
Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate
Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
 
Any
“climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related
greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to
combat the
threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.
 
“It
is
essential that climate change legislation include a border mechanism”
and
set aside a “sufficient” portion
of the bill's emissions allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers
such as
iron ore, steel, cement, and glass, the letter said.
Cap-and-trade
provisions expected to be included in the Senate bill would require
power
plants and other industries to hold such allowances for each ton of
greenhouse
gases they emit.
 
In
the Senate,
the issue of border tariffs and other border adjustment policies is a
divisive
one among Democrats, who control the chamber 60 to 40 but can afford
few
defections if they are to overcome a Republican filibuster threat.
While
senators from manufacturing states generally support such protections,
others
including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have warned that such policies
could
violate World Trade Organization rules and could trigger retaliatory
trade
actions from other countries.
 
Strong
Border
Tariff Language in House Bill
 
Climate
legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the House June 26 contained several
border
adjustment measures, including provisions directing the U.S. president
to
impose a border tariff in 2020 if China, India, and other
fast-developing
nations have not agreed to curb emissions under an international
climate deal
(122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).
 
To
waive the
border adjustment, the president would have to be specifically
authorized to do
so through a joint resolution of Congress.
 
President
Obama
told reporters June 28 that he would oppose such provisions, which
could be
perceived as protectionist “when the economy worldwide is still deep in
recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade.”
 
“I
think
we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out
there,” the president said.
 
But
the 10
Democratic senators wrote that border adjustment mechanisms could
bolster
chances of getting an international climate agreement that includes China
and India, which Obama strongly
supports.
 
Border
Tariffs
Seen as Leverage
 
The
senators
wrote that the threat of a U.S.
border tariff could bring those countries to the table at international
climate negotiations in December
in Copenhagen, where more than 190 countries
have vowed to conclude talks on a new global climate deal.
 
China
and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding,
equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that
would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators
wrote.
 
The
House bill,
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also includes
provisions to
cushion the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive
industries, including an Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would
award 15
percent of the total allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to
energy-intensive
industries at no cost.
 
Under
the House
bill, only the most efficient companies in the cement, steel, and other
sectors
would be eligible for the free allowances, which would be phased out
gradually
beginning in 2026.
 
Several
business
groups have warned against including such measures in any Senate
climate bill,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign
Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.
 
The
U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business July 22
wrote
Senate leaders, warning against taking protectionist measures that they
said
could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8, 7/24/09).
 
By
Dean Scott
 
 

Full text of the
Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators to President Obama on climate change
legislation is available at

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02

Daily Report for
Executives™

Source:  Daily
Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 

Senators
Tell Obama They Need Protections For U.S. Manufacturing to Back Climate
Bill

Ten Democratic
senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust
Belt states, warned President Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their support for
climate legislation will hinge on whether they get strong protections for
domestic industries, including a border adjustment mechanism.

The senators,
viewed as a key bloc in determining the fate of a Democratic climate bill being
readied for a floor vote this fall, said any bill must ensure a level playing
field for U.S. manufacturing
if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for manufacturers.

The letter was
signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Evan Bayh (Ind.),
Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Arlen Specter (Pa.),
John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al Franken (Minn).

The letter was
also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Any
“climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related
greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to combat the
threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United States,” the senators
wrote.

“It is
essential that climate change legislation include a border mechanism” and
set aside a “sufficient” portion
of the bill's emissions allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers such as
iron ore, steel, cement, and glass, the letter said. Cap-and-trade
provisions expected to be included in the Senate bill would require power
plants and other industries to hold such allowances for each ton of greenhouse
gases they emit.

In the Senate,
the issue of border tariffs and other border adjustment policies is a divisive
one among Democrats, who control the chamber 60 to 40 but can afford few
defections if they are to overcome a Republican filibuster threat. While
senators from manufacturing states generally support such protections, others
including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have warned that such policies could
violate World Trade Organization rules and could trigger retaliatory trade
actions from other countries.

Strong Border
Tariff Language in House Bill

Climate
legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the House June 26 contained several border
adjustment measures, including provisions directing the U.S. president to
impose a border tariff in 2020 if China, India, and other fast-developing
nations have not agreed to curb emissions under an international climate deal
(122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).

To waive the
border adjustment, the president would have to be specifically authorized to do
so through a joint resolution of Congress.

President Obama
told reporters June 28 that he would oppose such provisions, which could be
perceived as protectionist “when the economy worldwide is still deep in
recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade.”

“I think
we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out
there,” the president said.

But the 10
Democratic senators wrote that border adjustment mechanisms could bolster
chances of getting an international climate agreement that includes China and India, which Obama strongly
supports.

Border Tariffs
Seen as Leverage

The senators
wrote that the threat of a U.S.
border tariff could bring those countries to the table at international climate negotiations in December in Copenhagen, where more than 190 countries
have vowed to conclude talks on a new global climate deal.

China and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding, equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the senators
wrote.

The House bill,
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also includes provisions to
cushion the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive
industries, including an Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would award 15
percent of the total allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to energy-intensive
industries at no cost.

Under the House
bill, only the most efficient companies in the cement, steel, and other sectors
would be eligible for the free allowances, which would be phased out gradually
beginning in 2026.

Several business
groups have warned against including such measures in any Senate climate bill,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business July 22 wrote
Senate leaders, warning against taking protectionist measures that they said
could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8, 7/24/09).

By Dean Scott

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1)

Reply (via web post)
|

Start a new topic

Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
| Polls
| Members
| Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group
|

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that they will not
support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does that
amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:
 

Full
text of the
Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators to President Obama on climate
change
legislation is available at
http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02
 

Daily
Report for
Executives™

Source:  Daily
Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 
 
Senators
Tell Obama They Need Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate
Bill
 
Ten
Democratic
senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust
Belt states, warned President Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their
support for
climate legislation will hinge on whether they get strong protections
for
domestic industries, including a border adjustment mechanism.
 
The
senators,
viewed as a key bloc in determining the fate of a Democratic climate
bill being
readied for a floor vote this fall, said any bill must ensure a level
playing
field for U.S. manufacturing
if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse
gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.
The
letter was
signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio),
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.),
Evan Bayh (Ind.),
Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Arlen
Specter (Pa.),
John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al Franken (Minn).
 
The
letter was
also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate
Environment and
Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate
Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
 
Any
“climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related
greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to
combat the
threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.
 
“It
is
essential that climate change legislation include a border mechanism”
and
set aside a “sufficient” portion
of the bill's emissions allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers
such as
iron ore, steel, cement, and glass, the letter said.
Cap-and-trade
provisions expected to be included in the Senate bill would require
power
plants and other industries to hold such allowances for each ton of
greenhouse
gases they emit.
 
In
the Senate,
the issue of border tariffs and other border adjustment policies is a
divisive
one among Democrats, who control the chamber 60 to 40 but can afford
few
defections if they are to overcome a Republican filibuster threat.
While
senators from manufacturing states generally support such protections,
others
including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have warned that such policies
could
violate World Trade Organization rules and could trigger retaliatory
trade
actions from other countries.
 
Strong
Border
Tariff Language in House Bill
 
Climate
legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the House June 26 contained several
border
adjustment measures, including provisions directing the U.S. president
to
impose a border tariff in 2020 if China, India, and other
fast-developing
nations have not agreed to curb emissions under an international
climate deal
(122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).
 
To
waive the
border adjustment, the president would have to be specifically
authorized to do
so through a joint resolution of Congress.
 
President
Obama
told reporters June 28 that he would oppose such provisions, which
could be
perceived as protectionist “when the economy worldwide is still deep in
recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade.”
 
“I
think
we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out
there,” the president said.
 
But
the 10
Democratic senators wrote that border adjustment mechanisms could
bolster
chances of getting an international climate agreement that includes China
and India, which Obama strongly
supports.
 
Border
Tariffs
Seen as Leverage
 
The
senators
wrote that the threat of a U.S.
border tariff could bring those countries to the table at international
climate negotiations in December
in Copenhagen, where more than 190 countries
have vowed to conclude talks on a new global climate deal.
 
China
and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding,
equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that
would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators
wrote.
 
The
House bill,
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also includes
provisions to
cushion the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive
industries, including an Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would
award 15
percent of the total allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to
energy-intensive
industries at no cost.
 
Under
the House
bill, only the most efficient companies in the cement, steel, and other
sectors
would be eligible for the free allowances, which would be phased out
gradually
beginning in 2026.
 
Several
business
groups have warned against including such measures in any Senate
climate bill,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign
Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.
 
The
U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business July 22
wrote
Senate leaders, warning against taking protectionist measures that they
said
could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8, 7/24/09).
 
By
Dean Scott
 
 

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that they will not
support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does that
amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:
 

Full
text of the
Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators to President Obama on climate
change
legislation is available at
http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02
 

Daily
Report for
Executives™

Source:  Daily
Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 
 
Senators
Tell Obama They Need Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate
Bill
 
Ten
Democratic
senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust
Belt states, warned President Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their
support for
climate legislation will hinge on whether they get strong protections
for
domestic industries, including a border adjustment mechanism.
 
The
senators,
viewed as a key bloc in determining the fate of a Democratic climate
bill being
readied for a floor vote this fall, said any bill must ensure a level
playing
field for U.S. manufacturing
if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse
gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.
The
letter was
signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio),
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.),
Evan Bayh (Ind.),
Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Arlen
Specter (Pa.),
John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al Franken (Minn).
 
The
letter was
also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate
Environment and
Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate
Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
 
Any
“climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related
greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to
combat the
threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.
 
“It
is
essential that climate change legislation include a border mechanism”
and
set aside a “sufficient” portion
of the bill's emissions allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers
such as
iron ore, steel, cement, and glass, the letter said.
Cap-and-trade
provisions expected to be included in the Senate bill would require
power
plants and other industries to hold such allowances for each ton of
greenhouse
gases they emit.
 
In
the Senate,
the issue of border tariffs and other border adjustment policies is a
divisive
one among Democrats, who control the chamber 60 to 40 but can afford
few
defections if they are to overcome a Republican filibuster threat.
While
senators from manufacturing states generally support such protections,
others
including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have warned that such policies
could
violate World Trade Organization rules and could trigger retaliatory
trade
actions from other countries.
 
Strong
Border
Tariff Language in House Bill
 
Climate
legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the House June 26 contained several
border
adjustment measures, including provisions directing the U.S. president
to
impose a border tariff in 2020 if China, India, and other
fast-developing
nations have not agreed to curb emissions under an international
climate deal
(122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).
 
To
waive the
border adjustment, the president would have to be specifically
authorized to do
so through a joint resolution of Congress.
 
President
Obama
told reporters June 28 that he would oppose such provisions, which
could be
perceived as protectionist “when the economy worldwide is still deep in
recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade.”
 
“I
think
we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out
there,” the president said.
 
But
the 10
Democratic senators wrote that border adjustment mechanisms could
bolster
chances of getting an international climate agreement that includes China
and India, which Obama strongly
supports.
 
Border
Tariffs
Seen as Leverage
 
The
senators
wrote that the threat of a U.S.
border tariff could bring those countries to the table at international
climate negotiations in December
in Copenhagen, where more than 190 countries
have vowed to conclude talks on a new global climate deal.
 
China
and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding,
equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that
would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators
wrote.
 
The
House bill,
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also includes
provisions to
cushion the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive
industries, including an Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would
award 15
percent of the total allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to
energy-intensive
industries at no cost.
 
Under
the House
bill, only the most efficient companies in the cement, steel, and other
sectors
would be eligible for the free allowances, which would be phased out
gradually
beginning in 2026.
 
Several
business
groups have warned against including such measures in any Senate
climate bill,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign
Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.
 
The
U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business July 22
wrote
Senate leaders, warning against taking protectionist measures that they
said
could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8, 7/24/09).
 
By
Dean Scott
 
 

Hi Len,

     As I understand
it, these 10 legislators are not afraid to be labeled “protectionist.” 
They have been highly critical of NAFTA and other free trade agreements that
make it easy for companies to send American jobs overseas.  If cap and
trade legislation makes it cheaper for polluters to do business in China, then
Chinese imports need to be taxed accordingly before they come into the American
market to level the playing field.  Otherwise, we are simply encouraging
American businesses to outsource emissions, as it were.  Another way of
saying it is “free trade is not fair trade.”

     President Obama
has not yet followed through on his campaign promises to re-negotiate NAFTA and
other free trade agreements that encourage U.S. companies to relocate to
countries with no labor rights, safety regulations, or environmental standards. 
It’s a tangled web.

Take Care,

Brooke

From: Len and Judy Bjorkman [mailto:lenandjudy@stny.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009
9:19 PM
To: FAB5EcoJustice@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FAB5EcoJustice] fear
that legislation could encourage outsourcing of jobs & emissions

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that
they will not support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does
that amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving
responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:

Full text of the Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators
to President Obama on climate change legislation is available at

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02

Daily Report for Executives™

Source:  Daily Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 

Senators Tell Obama They Need
Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate Bill

Ten Democratic senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust Belt states, warned President
Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their support for climate legislation will hinge
on whether they get strong protections for domestic industries, including a
border adjustment mechanism.

The senators, viewed as a key bloc in determining
the fate of a Democratic climate bill being readied for a floor vote this fall,
said any bill must ensure a level playing field for U.S. manufacturing if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.

The letter was signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Evan Bayh
(Ind.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.),
Arlen Specter (Pa.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al
Franken (Minn).

The letter was also sent to Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
(D-Mont.).

Any “climate change legislation must prevent
the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail
to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those
taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.

“It is essential that climate change
legislation include a border mechanism” and set aside a “sufficient” portion of the bill's emissions
allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers such as iron ore, steel, cement,
and glass, the letter said. Cap-and-trade provisions expected to be
included in the Senate bill would require power plants and other industries to
hold such allowances for each ton of greenhouse gases they emit.

In the Senate, the issue of border tariffs and other
border adjustment policies is a divisive one among Democrats, who control the
chamber 60 to 40 but can afford few defections if they are to overcome a
Republican filibuster threat. While senators from manufacturing states
generally support such protections, others including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
have warned that such policies could violate World Trade Organization rules and
could trigger retaliatory trade actions from other countries.

Strong Border Tariff Language in House Bill

Climate legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the
House June 26 contained several border adjustment measures, including
provisions directing the U.S. president to impose a border tariff in 2020 if
China, India, and other fast-developing nations have not agreed to curb
emissions under an international climate deal (122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).

To waive the border adjustment, the president would
have to be specifically authorized to do so through a joint resolution of
Congress.

President Obama told reporters June 28 that he would
oppose such provisions, which could be perceived as protectionist “when
the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant
drop in global trade.”

“I think we have to be very careful about
sending any protectionist signals out there,” the president said.

But the 10 Democratic senators wrote that border
adjustment mechanisms could bolster chances of getting an international climate
agreement that includes China
and India,
which Obama strongly supports.

Border Tariffs Seen as Leverage

The senators wrote that the threat of a U.S. border tariff could bring those
countries to the table at international climate
negotiations in December in Copenhagen,
where more than 190 countries have vowed to conclude talks on a new global
climate deal.

China and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding, equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators wrote.

The House bill, the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009, also includes provisions to cushion the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive industries, including an
Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would award 15 percent of the total
allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to energy-intensive industries at no cost.

Under the House bill, only the most efficient
companies in the cement, steel, and other sectors would be eligible for the
free allowances, which would be phased out gradually beginning in 2026.

Several business groups have warned against
including such measures in any Senate climate bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Council
for International Business July 22 wrote Senate leaders, warning against taking
protectionist measures that they said could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8,
7/24/09).

By Dean Scott

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (3)

Reply (via web post)
|

Start a new topic

Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
| Polls
| Members
| Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group
|

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

Hi Len,

     As I understand
it, these 10 legislators are not afraid to be labeled “protectionist.” 
They have been highly critical of NAFTA and other free trade agreements that
make it easy for companies to send American jobs overseas.  If cap and
trade legislation makes it cheaper for polluters to do business in China, then
Chinese imports need to be taxed accordingly before they come into the American
market to level the playing field.  Otherwise, we are simply encouraging
American businesses to outsource emissions, as it were.  Another way of
saying it is “free trade is not fair trade.”

     President Obama
has not yet followed through on his campaign promises to re-negotiate NAFTA and
other free trade agreements that encourage U.S. companies to relocate to
countries with no labor rights, safety regulations, or environmental standards. 
It’s a tangled web.

Take Care,

Brooke

From: Len and Judy Bjorkman [mailto:lenandjudy@stny.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009
9:19 PM
To: FAB5EcoJustice@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FAB5EcoJustice] fear
that legislation could encourage outsourcing of jobs & emissions

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that
they will not support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does
that amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving
responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:

Full text of the Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators
to President Obama on climate change legislation is available at

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02

Daily Report for Executives™

Source:  Daily Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 

Senators Tell Obama They Need
Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate Bill

Ten Democratic senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust Belt states, warned President
Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their support for climate legislation will hinge
on whether they get strong protections for domestic industries, including a
border adjustment mechanism.

The senators, viewed as a key bloc in determining
the fate of a Democratic climate bill being readied for a floor vote this fall,
said any bill must ensure a level playing field for U.S. manufacturing if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.

The letter was signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Evan Bayh
(Ind.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.),
Arlen Specter (Pa.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al
Franken (Minn).

The letter was also sent to Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
(D-Mont.).

Any “climate change legislation must prevent
the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail
to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those
taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.

“It is essential that climate change
legislation include a border mechanism” and set aside a “sufficient” portion of the bill's emissions
allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers such as iron ore, steel, cement,
and glass, the letter said. Cap-and-trade provisions expected to be
included in the Senate bill would require power plants and other industries to
hold such allowances for each ton of greenhouse gases they emit.

In the Senate, the issue of border tariffs and other
border adjustment policies is a divisive one among Democrats, who control the
chamber 60 to 40 but can afford few defections if they are to overcome a
Republican filibuster threat. While senators from manufacturing states
generally support such protections, others including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
have warned that such policies could violate World Trade Organization rules and
could trigger retaliatory trade actions from other countries.

Strong Border Tariff Language in House Bill

Climate legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the
House June 26 contained several border adjustment measures, including
provisions directing the U.S. president to impose a border tariff in 2020 if
China, India, and other fast-developing nations have not agreed to curb
emissions under an international climate deal (122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).

To waive the border adjustment, the president would
have to be specifically authorized to do so through a joint resolution of
Congress.

President Obama told reporters June 28 that he would
oppose such provisions, which could be perceived as protectionist “when
the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant
drop in global trade.”

“I think we have to be very careful about
sending any protectionist signals out there,” the president said.

But the 10 Democratic senators wrote that border
adjustment mechanisms could bolster chances of getting an international climate
agreement that includes China
and India,
which Obama strongly supports.

Border Tariffs Seen as Leverage

The senators wrote that the threat of a U.S. border tariff could bring those
countries to the table at international climate
negotiations in December in Copenhagen,
where more than 190 countries have vowed to conclude talks on a new global
climate deal.

China and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding, equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators wrote.

The House bill, the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009, also includes provisions to cushion the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive industries, including an
Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would award 15 percent of the total
allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to energy-intensive industries at no cost.

Under the House bill, only the most efficient
companies in the cement, steel, and other sectors would be eligible for the
free allowances, which would be phased out gradually beginning in 2026.

Several business groups have warned against
including such measures in any Senate climate bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Council
for International Business July 22 wrote Senate leaders, warning against taking
protectionist measures that they said could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8,
7/24/09).

By Dean Scott

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (3)

Reply (via web post)
|

Start a new topic

Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
| Polls
| Members
| Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group
|

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that they will not
support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does that
amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:
 

Full
text of the
Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators to President Obama on climate
change
legislation is available at
http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02
 

Daily
Report for
Executives™

Source:  Daily
Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 
 
Senators
Tell Obama They Need Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate
Bill
 
Ten
Democratic
senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust
Belt states, warned President Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their
support for
climate legislation will hinge on whether they get strong protections
for
domestic industries, including a border adjustment mechanism.
 
The
senators,
viewed as a key bloc in determining the fate of a Democratic climate
bill being
readied for a floor vote this fall, said any bill must ensure a level
playing
field for U.S. manufacturing
if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse
gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.
The
letter was
signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio),
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.),
Evan Bayh (Ind.),
Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Arlen
Specter (Pa.),
John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al Franken (Minn).
 
The
letter was
also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate
Environment and
Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate
Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
 
Any
“climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related
greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to
combat the
threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.
 
“It
is
essential that climate change legislation include a border mechanism”
and
set aside a “sufficient” portion
of the bill's emissions allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers
such as
iron ore, steel, cement, and glass, the letter said.
Cap-and-trade
provisions expected to be included in the Senate bill would require
power
plants and other industries to hold such allowances for each ton of
greenhouse
gases they emit.
 
In
the Senate,
the issue of border tariffs and other border adjustment policies is a
divisive
one among Democrats, who control the chamber 60 to 40 but can afford
few
defections if they are to overcome a Republican filibuster threat.
While
senators from manufacturing states generally support such protections,
others
including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have warned that such policies
could
violate World Trade Organization rules and could trigger retaliatory
trade
actions from other countries.
 
Strong
Border
Tariff Language in House Bill
 
Climate
legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the House June 26 contained several
border
adjustment measures, including provisions directing the U.S. president
to
impose a border tariff in 2020 if China, India, and other
fast-developing
nations have not agreed to curb emissions under an international
climate deal
(122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).
 
To
waive the
border adjustment, the president would have to be specifically
authorized to do
so through a joint resolution of Congress.
 
President
Obama
told reporters June 28 that he would oppose such provisions, which
could be
perceived as protectionist “when the economy worldwide is still deep in
recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade.”
 
“I
think
we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out
there,” the president said.
 
But
the 10
Democratic senators wrote that border adjustment mechanisms could
bolster
chances of getting an international climate agreement that includes China
and India, which Obama strongly
supports.
 
Border
Tariffs
Seen as Leverage
 
The
senators
wrote that the threat of a U.S.
border tariff could bring those countries to the table at international
climate negotiations in December
in Copenhagen, where more than 190 countries
have vowed to conclude talks on a new global climate deal.
 
China
and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding,
equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that
would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators
wrote.
 
The
House bill,
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also includes
provisions to
cushion the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive
industries, including an Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would
award 15
percent of the total allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to
energy-intensive
industries at no cost.
 
Under
the House
bill, only the most efficient companies in the cement, steel, and other
sectors
would be eligible for the free allowances, which would be phased out
gradually
beginning in 2026.
 
Several
business
groups have warned against including such measures in any Senate
climate bill,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign
Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.
 
The
U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business July 22
wrote
Senate leaders, warning against taking protectionist measures that they
said
could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8, 7/24/09).
 
By
Dean Scott
 
 

Full text of the
Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators to President Obama on climate change
legislation is available at

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02

Daily Report for
Executives™

Source:  Daily
Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 

Senators
Tell Obama They Need Protections For U.S. Manufacturing to Back Climate
Bill

Ten Democratic
senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust
Belt states, warned President Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their support for
climate legislation will hinge on whether they get strong protections for
domestic industries, including a border adjustment mechanism.

The senators,
viewed as a key bloc in determining the fate of a Democratic climate bill being
readied for a floor vote this fall, said any bill must ensure a level playing
field for U.S. manufacturing
if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for manufacturers.

The letter was
signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Evan Bayh (Ind.),
Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Arlen Specter (Pa.),
John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al Franken (Minn).

The letter was
also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Any
“climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related
greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to combat the
threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United States,” the senators
wrote.

“It is
essential that climate change legislation include a border mechanism” and
set aside a “sufficient” portion
of the bill's emissions allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers such as
iron ore, steel, cement, and glass, the letter said. Cap-and-trade
provisions expected to be included in the Senate bill would require power
plants and other industries to hold such allowances for each ton of greenhouse
gases they emit.

In the Senate,
the issue of border tariffs and other border adjustment policies is a divisive
one among Democrats, who control the chamber 60 to 40 but can afford few
defections if they are to overcome a Republican filibuster threat. While
senators from manufacturing states generally support such protections, others
including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have warned that such policies could
violate World Trade Organization rules and could trigger retaliatory trade
actions from other countries.

Strong Border
Tariff Language in House Bill

Climate
legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the House June 26 contained several border
adjustment measures, including provisions directing the U.S. president to
impose a border tariff in 2020 if China, India, and other fast-developing
nations have not agreed to curb emissions under an international climate deal
(122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).

To waive the
border adjustment, the president would have to be specifically authorized to do
so through a joint resolution of Congress.

President Obama
told reporters June 28 that he would oppose such provisions, which could be
perceived as protectionist “when the economy worldwide is still deep in
recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade.”

“I think
we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out
there,” the president said.

But the 10
Democratic senators wrote that border adjustment mechanisms could bolster
chances of getting an international climate agreement that includes China and India, which Obama strongly
supports.

Border Tariffs
Seen as Leverage

The senators
wrote that the threat of a U.S.
border tariff could bring those countries to the table at international climate negotiations in December in Copenhagen, where more than 190 countries
have vowed to conclude talks on a new global climate deal.

China and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding, equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the senators
wrote.

The House bill,
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also includes provisions to
cushion the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive
industries, including an Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would award 15
percent of the total allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to energy-intensive
industries at no cost.

Under the House
bill, only the most efficient companies in the cement, steel, and other sectors
would be eligible for the free allowances, which would be phased out gradually
beginning in 2026.

Several business
groups have warned against including such measures in any Senate climate bill,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business July 22 wrote
Senate leaders, warning against taking protectionist measures that they said
could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8, 7/24/09).

By Dean Scott

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1)

Reply (via web post)
|

Start a new topic

Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
| Polls
| Members
| Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group
|

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

Hi Len,

     As I understand
it, these 10 legislators are not afraid to be labeled “protectionist.” 
They have been highly critical of NAFTA and other free trade agreements that
make it easy for companies to send American jobs overseas.  If cap and
trade legislation makes it cheaper for polluters to do business in China, then
Chinese imports need to be taxed accordingly before they come into the American
market to level the playing field.  Otherwise, we are simply encouraging
American businesses to outsource emissions, as it were.  Another way of
saying it is “free trade is not fair trade.”

     President Obama
has not yet followed through on his campaign promises to re-negotiate NAFTA and
other free trade agreements that encourage U.S. companies to relocate to
countries with no labor rights, safety regulations, or environmental standards. 
It’s a tangled web.

Take Care,

Brooke

From: Len and Judy Bjorkman [mailto:lenandjudy@stny.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009
9:19 PM
To: FAB5EcoJustice@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FAB5EcoJustice] fear
that legislation could encourage outsourcing of jobs & emissions

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that
they will not support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does
that amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving
responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:

Full text of the Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators
to President Obama on climate change legislation is available at

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02

Daily Report for Executives™

Source:  Daily Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 

Senators Tell Obama They Need
Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate Bill

Ten Democratic senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust Belt states, warned President
Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their support for climate legislation will hinge
on whether they get strong protections for domestic industries, including a
border adjustment mechanism.

The senators, viewed as a key bloc in determining
the fate of a Democratic climate bill being readied for a floor vote this fall,
said any bill must ensure a level playing field for U.S. manufacturing if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.

The letter was signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Evan Bayh
(Ind.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.),
Arlen Specter (Pa.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al
Franken (Minn).

The letter was also sent to Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
(D-Mont.).

Any “climate change legislation must prevent
the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail
to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those
taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.

“It is essential that climate change
legislation include a border mechanism” and set aside a “sufficient” portion of the bill's emissions
allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers such as iron ore, steel, cement,
and glass, the letter said. Cap-and-trade provisions expected to be
included in the Senate bill would require power plants and other industries to
hold such allowances for each ton of greenhouse gases they emit.

In the Senate, the issue of border tariffs and other
border adjustment policies is a divisive one among Democrats, who control the
chamber 60 to 40 but can afford few defections if they are to overcome a
Republican filibuster threat. While senators from manufacturing states
generally support such protections, others including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
have warned that such policies could violate World Trade Organization rules and
could trigger retaliatory trade actions from other countries.

Strong Border Tariff Language in House Bill

Climate legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the
House June 26 contained several border adjustment measures, including
provisions directing the U.S. president to impose a border tariff in 2020 if
China, India, and other fast-developing nations have not agreed to curb
emissions under an international climate deal (122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).

To waive the border adjustment, the president would
have to be specifically authorized to do so through a joint resolution of
Congress.

President Obama told reporters June 28 that he would
oppose such provisions, which could be perceived as protectionist “when
the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant
drop in global trade.”

“I think we have to be very careful about
sending any protectionist signals out there,” the president said.

But the 10 Democratic senators wrote that border
adjustment mechanisms could bolster chances of getting an international climate
agreement that includes China
and India,
which Obama strongly supports.

Border Tariffs Seen as Leverage

The senators wrote that the threat of a U.S. border tariff could bring those
countries to the table at international climate
negotiations in December in Copenhagen,
where more than 190 countries have vowed to conclude talks on a new global
climate deal.

China and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding, equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators wrote.

The House bill, the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009, also includes provisions to cushion the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive industries, including an
Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would award 15 percent of the total
allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to energy-intensive industries at no cost.

Under the House bill, only the most efficient
companies in the cement, steel, and other sectors would be eligible for the
free allowances, which would be phased out gradually beginning in 2026.

Several business groups have warned against
including such measures in any Senate climate bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Council
for International Business July 22 wrote Senate leaders, warning against taking
protectionist measures that they said could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8,
7/24/09).

By Dean Scott

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (3)

Reply (via web post)
|

Start a new topic

Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
| Polls
| Members
| Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group
|

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

Hi Len,

     As I understand
it, these 10 legislators are not afraid to be labeled “protectionist.” 
They have been highly critical of NAFTA and other free trade agreements that
make it easy for companies to send American jobs overseas.  If cap and
trade legislation makes it cheaper for polluters to do business in China, then
Chinese imports need to be taxed accordingly before they come into the American
market to level the playing field.  Otherwise, we are simply encouraging
American businesses to outsource emissions, as it were.  Another way of
saying it is “free trade is not fair trade.”

     President Obama
has not yet followed through on his campaign promises to re-negotiate NAFTA and
other free trade agreements that encourage U.S. companies to relocate to
countries with no labor rights, safety regulations, or environmental standards. 
It’s a tangled web.

Take Care,

Brooke

From: Len and Judy Bjorkman [mailto:lenandjudy@stny.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009
9:19 PM
To: FAB5EcoJustice@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FAB5EcoJustice] fear
that legislation could encourage outsourcing of jobs & emissions

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that
they will not support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does
that amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving
responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:

Full text of the Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators
to President Obama on climate change legislation is available at

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02

Daily Report for Executives™

Source:  Daily Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 

Senators Tell Obama They Need
Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate Bill

Ten Democratic senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust Belt states, warned President
Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their support for climate legislation will hinge
on whether they get strong protections for domestic industries, including a
border adjustment mechanism.

The senators, viewed as a key bloc in determining
the fate of a Democratic climate bill being readied for a floor vote this fall,
said any bill must ensure a level playing field for U.S. manufacturing if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.

The letter was signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Evan Bayh
(Ind.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.),
Arlen Specter (Pa.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al
Franken (Minn).

The letter was also sent to Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
(D-Mont.).

Any “climate change legislation must prevent
the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail
to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those
taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.

“It is essential that climate change
legislation include a border mechanism” and set aside a “sufficient” portion of the bill's emissions
allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers such as iron ore, steel, cement,
and glass, the letter said. Cap-and-trade provisions expected to be
included in the Senate bill would require power plants and other industries to
hold such allowances for each ton of greenhouse gases they emit.

In the Senate, the issue of border tariffs and other
border adjustment policies is a divisive one among Democrats, who control the
chamber 60 to 40 but can afford few defections if they are to overcome a
Republican filibuster threat. While senators from manufacturing states
generally support such protections, others including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
have warned that such policies could violate World Trade Organization rules and
could trigger retaliatory trade actions from other countries.

Strong Border Tariff Language in House Bill

Climate legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the
House June 26 contained several border adjustment measures, including
provisions directing the U.S. president to impose a border tariff in 2020 if
China, India, and other fast-developing nations have not agreed to curb
emissions under an international climate deal (122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).

To waive the border adjustment, the president would
have to be specifically authorized to do so through a joint resolution of
Congress.

President Obama told reporters June 28 that he would
oppose such provisions, which could be perceived as protectionist “when
the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant
drop in global trade.”

“I think we have to be very careful about
sending any protectionist signals out there,” the president said.

But the 10 Democratic senators wrote that border
adjustment mechanisms could bolster chances of getting an international climate
agreement that includes China
and India,
which Obama strongly supports.

Border Tariffs Seen as Leverage

The senators wrote that the threat of a U.S. border tariff could bring those
countries to the table at international climate
negotiations in December in Copenhagen,
where more than 190 countries have vowed to conclude talks on a new global
climate deal.

China and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding, equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators wrote.

The House bill, the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009, also includes provisions to cushion the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive industries, including an
Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would award 15 percent of the total
allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to energy-intensive industries at no cost.

Under the House bill, only the most efficient
companies in the cement, steel, and other sectors would be eligible for the
free allowances, which would be phased out gradually beginning in 2026.

Several business groups have warned against
including such measures in any Senate climate bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Council
for International Business July 22 wrote Senate leaders, warning against taking
protectionist measures that they said could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8,
7/24/09).

By Dean Scott

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (3)

Reply (via web post)
|

Start a new topic

Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
| Polls
| Members
| Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group
|

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

Hi Len,

     As I understand
it, these 10 legislators are not afraid to be labeled “protectionist.” 
They have been highly critical of NAFTA and other free trade agreements that
make it easy for companies to send American jobs overseas.  If cap and
trade legislation makes it cheaper for polluters to do business in China, then
Chinese imports need to be taxed accordingly before they come into the American
market to level the playing field.  Otherwise, we are simply encouraging
American businesses to outsource emissions, as it were.  Another way of
saying it is “free trade is not fair trade.”

     President Obama
has not yet followed through on his campaign promises to re-negotiate NAFTA and
other free trade agreements that encourage U.S. companies to relocate to
countries with no labor rights, safety regulations, or environmental standards. 
It’s a tangled web.

Take Care,

Brooke

From: Len and Judy Bjorkman [mailto:lenandjudy@stny.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009
9:19 PM
To: FAB5EcoJustice@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FAB5EcoJustice] fear
that legislation could encourage outsourcing of jobs & emissions

It sounds to me that these senators are saying that
they will not support changes unless other countries, like China, do. Does
that amount to other countries having a "veto" over our behaving
responsibly?
I hope there's out there a good analysis of these senators position.
Peace, Len

Brooke Newell wrote:

Full text of the Aug. 6 letter from 10 Democratic senators
to President Obama on climate change legislation is available at

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=AD9CC0FA-53C2-442C-AB20-EEE0A7572F02

Daily Report for Executives™

Source:  Daily Report for Executives: All
Issues > 2009 > August > 08/10/2009 

Senators Tell Obama They Need
Protections For U.S.
Manufacturing to Back Climate Bill

Ten Democratic senators, mostly from the Midwest and Rust Belt states, warned President
Obama in an Aug. 6 letter that their support for climate legislation will hinge
on whether they get strong protections for domestic industries, including a
border adjustment mechanism.

The senators, viewed as a key bloc in determining
the fate of a Democratic climate bill being readied for a floor vote this fall,
said any bill must ensure a level playing field for U.S. manufacturing if China
and other fast-developing nations fail to act to curb their greenhouse gas
emissions. The senators warned that they would find it “extremely
difficult” to support legislation without such protections for
manufacturers.

The letter was signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Russell D. Feingold (Wis.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Evan Bayh
(Ind.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.),
Arlen Specter (Pa.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Al
Franken (Minn).

The letter was also sent to Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
(D-Mont.).

Any “climate change legislation must prevent
the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail
to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those
taken by the United
States,” the senators
wrote.

“It is essential that climate change
legislation include a border mechanism” and set aside a “sufficient” portion of the bill's emissions
allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers such as iron ore, steel, cement,
and glass, the letter said. Cap-and-trade provisions expected to be
included in the Senate bill would require power plants and other industries to
hold such allowances for each ton of greenhouse gases they emit.

In the Senate, the issue of border tariffs and other
border adjustment policies is a divisive one among Democrats, who control the
chamber 60 to 40 but can afford few defections if they are to overcome a
Republican filibuster threat. While senators from manufacturing states
generally support such protections, others including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
have warned that such policies could violate World Trade Organization rules and
could trigger retaliatory trade actions from other countries.

Strong Border Tariff Language in House Bill

Climate legislation (H.R. 2454) approved in the
House June 26 contained several border adjustment measures, including
provisions directing the U.S. president to impose a border tariff in 2020 if
China, India, and other fast-developing nations have not agreed to curb
emissions under an international climate deal (122 DER AA-1, 6/29/09).

To waive the border adjustment, the president would
have to be specifically authorized to do so through a joint resolution of
Congress.

President Obama told reporters June 28 that he would
oppose such provisions, which could be perceived as protectionist “when
the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant
drop in global trade.”

“I think we have to be very careful about
sending any protectionist signals out there,” the president said.

But the 10 Democratic senators wrote that border
adjustment mechanisms could bolster chances of getting an international climate
agreement that includes China
and India,
which Obama strongly supports.

Border Tariffs Seen as Leverage

The senators wrote that the threat of a U.S. border tariff could bring those
countries to the table at international climate
negotiations in December in Copenhagen,
where more than 190 countries have vowed to conclude talks on a new global
climate deal.

China and other developing nations could avoid the
imposition of such measures if those nations “reach a binding, equitable,
and verifiable international agreement or sectoral agreements” that would
commit them to curb emissions in their carbon-intensive industries, the
senators wrote.

The House bill, the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009, also includes provisions to cushion the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions caps on trade-sensitive industries, including an
Emission Allowance Rebate Program that would award 15 percent of the total
allowances in the cap-and-trade bill to energy-intensive industries at no cost.

Under the House bill, only the most efficient
companies in the cement, steel, and other sectors would be eligible for the
free allowances, which would be phased out gradually beginning in 2026.

Several business groups have warned against
including such measures in any Senate climate bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade
Council, and the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Council
for International Business July 22 wrote Senate leaders, warning against taking
protectionist measures that they said could hurt U.S. exports (140 DER A-8,
7/24/09).

By Dean Scott

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (3)

Reply (via web post)
|

Start a new topic

Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Database
| Polls
| Members
| Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group
|

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___